If God is omniscient…

It seems to me there are a number of problems with the concept of omniscience.

The most glaring problem is that God has an enemy (how anthropomorphic is that?): the Devil. If God possessed omniscience, this would render any opponent impotent, wouldn’t it?

If God knows everything, he would know every possible way to avoid any attack by the Devil. He would also know every counterattack against and vulnerability of the Devil. Moreover, he would also know every plan the Devil would or could conceive of. Just thinking about how to destroy God would be a fruitless and incriminating task. This doesn’t seem like a fair fight.

So, either God is not omniscient or the Devil doesn’t exist. Or of course, it’s all nonsense.

Related

24 Comments:

I’m very intrigued by this… I always figured that the ‘Devil’ was an enemy of man…a rebel against God, perhaps, but it seems indeed fatuous, as you correctly point out, to suggest that God has a ‘natural’ enemy.

Yes, it is all nonsense, though it is important to realize how such nonsense originated. The whole of Judaism and all it’s meandering offshoot mythologies tinged with several divergent dogmas which together form the contradiction that is present day monotheism. The idea of a dual existence of good and evil is probably derived from Zoroastrianism. Though together with the idea of an allpowerful agency of good, this makes no sense. God is supposedly everywhere, though evil is reasoned (if theological thought can be considered reasonable) to be the absence of God. Hmm. Another essential contradiction of theism is the belief in an all knowing god and free-will. If god’s knowledge is irrefutable, then it becomes impossible for a person to do other than that which God knew they were going to do. Spinoza realized this, and he attempted to create a paradigm which constituted both a supreme God and determinism. Theism is essentially flawed, and thankfully, it is a dying relic of the past.

Ah, I read the history of God a few years ago… I remember it being a bit of a dull read, maybe that’s why I can’t remember much from it. I definitely haven’t read enough Nietzsche though. I’ll get on that, thanks 🙂

An enemy does not intrinsically mean that the opposition must be one of equal power. Many believe we have an enemy in Iran, but they are not in any way equal to our power. Just because on will be defeated easily, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t be enemies.

I think the implication might be more like this (correct me if I am wrong GTA):

Premise: If God is omniscient, he wouldn’t have an enemy because he could so easily destroy that enemy via his omniscience.
Conclusion: If God has an enemy, he is not omniscient.

I think the premise is problematic because it assumes an awful lot about God’s intentions and motivations. If the enemy serves some purpose for God (i.e. providing humans with a free will alternative to God, thereby making a decision to follow God more meaningful) then he would not have a reason to use his omniscience to destroy that enemy. That being said, maybe the enemy isn’t really an enemy if he is actually assisting (even coincidentally) in accomplishing something that God ultimately wants.

Yes! If God is omnipotent, he COULD destroy his enemy–but if that enemy didn’t exist, how would he prove his omnipotence. By allowing an enemy to exist (an enemy that is unable to destroy God, mind you), God proves his omnipotence.

This hypothetical conversation you provide makes God into a ruthless psychopath, doesn’t it? Killing off millions of people to prove a point against a devil he could defeat with the snap of his fingers? Is that an all-loving God?

The first part of your response is what I was saying, yes. God’s omniscience renders any opposition absolutely impotent and therefore meaningless.

Sacredstruggler’s example of Iran is not an adequate analogy. Iran can harm America in many minor ways. It can even harm America is some substantial ways (if America were drawn into a war with Iran, the economic — not to mention human — cost would be catastrophic for an already weakened American economy). Therefore, Iran qualifies as an enemy.

A closer example would be you and an ant. In truth, there is little an ant can do to become your enemy because it is so powerless in comparison to you. The fact that it can get a lucky bite and make you angry is just evidence that this is not a PERFECT example of God verses the Devil, not that omniscience nullifies the ability to have an enemy.

As for your second half, I can’t understand how God would want to have an evil enemy exist if God is supposed to be omnibenevolent too. If you are all-loving, wouldn’t it be your imperative to eliminate all evil that you could (since God is also supposedly omnipotent, this would therefore be ALL evil)?

Yeah, it definitely does. Maybe it was one of those “this is gonna hurt me more than you; it’s for your own good” kind of things. I don’t know.

What I do know is that God’s ways (at least the God I believe in) are far greater than human comprehension, so attempts to analyze his motives, actions, etc. do not always end with a black and white answer. Take the cliche question: if god is all powerful, can he make a rock so big even he can’t lift it. The answer would have to be yes, even though it doesn’t make sense to our finite minds.

I believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God; therefore, since I am neither of those things, his ways are far greater than mine. I believe this more based on the access I have to my limited (i.e. non-omniscient) mind rather than access to God’s.

I disagree. Time is infinite, and I do not know all of time, but I do know what happened from 6am this morning until now. So if I can know a small portion of time (which is infinite), why can’t I know a small portion of God too? Knowing the entirety of something is not required to claim some level of understanding about it.